2019 The Localization of the Global Agendas · GOLD V REGIONAL REPORT —— EUROPE 7 The 2030...

The Localization of the Global AgendasHow local action is transforming territories and communities

2019

European region

© 2020 UCLG

The right of UCLG to be identified as author of the editorial material, and of the individual authors as authors of their contributions, has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

United Cities and Local GovernmentsCités et Gouvernements Locaux UnisCiudades y Gobiernos Locales UnidosAvinyó 1508002 Barcelonawww.uclg.org

DISCLAIMERS

The terms used concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development do not necessarily reflect the opinion of United Cities and Local Governments. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of all the members of United Cities and Local Governments.

This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of UCLG and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

This document has been financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida. Sida does not necessarily share the views expressed in this material. Responsibility for its content rests entirely with the author.

Graphic design and lay-out: www.ggrafic.comCover photos: Xiaojun Deng (bit.ly/2M26fCD), © AinaraFernández Tortosa, Christopher Rose (bit.ly/2Mus3Gi), William Murphy (t.ly/0X6jX), formatbrain, (bit.ly/2AWQart), AlejandroVN (bit.ly/2M4hk6e), lawrence’s lenses (bit.ly/2AZkodB) and Denys Nevozhai(t.ly/2W0Ad). All pictures published under Creative Commons licence.(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/). Some rights reserved.

The Localization of the Global AgendasHow local action is transforming territories and communities

The GOLD V Regional Report on Europe

Edited by UCLG and CEMR and PLATFORMA

4 GOLD V REGIONAL REPORT

Preliminary remarks

Editorial board CreditsForewordAbbreviations and acronymsBackground: Why SDG localization?

Introduction: the European regionPage 17

National and local institutional frameworks for the implementation of the SDGsPage 18

2.1 National institutional frameworks

2.2. Current situation of local and regional governments in Europe

2.3. Cooperative multilevel governance partnerships

The contribution of local and regional governments to the localization of the SDGsPage 38

3.1. Local government associations’ and regional networks’ actions to support local ownership of the SDGs

3.2. Local and regional government initiatives for the implementation of the SDGs

3.3. Local and regional governments as providers of innovation and solutions to achieve the SDGs

Conclusions and policy recommendations: the state of SDG localization in Europe Page 59

Policy recommendations at the global levelPage 62

NotesPage 71

BibliographyPage 78

Content

01

00

02

03

040506

5GOLD V REGIONAL REPORT —— EUROPE

CoordinationEdgardo BilskyLuc AldonAndrea CiambraAinara FernándezMathilde Penard

Policy advisoryEmilia Saiz, Secretary-General, UCLGUCLG Executive Bureau, 2016-2019

Secretary-Generals of UCLG sections · Africa: Jean-Pierre Elong Mbassi, UCLG Africa · Asia-Pacific: Bernadia Tjandradewi, UCLG ASPAC · Eurasia: Rasikh Sagitov, UCLG Eurasia · Europe: Fréderic Vallier, CEMR · Latin America - CORDIAL: Sergio Arredondo, FLACMA, Nelson Fernández, Mercociudades

· Middle East and West Asia: Mehmet Duman, UCLG MEWA

· Metropolis: Octavi de la Varga · North America: Brock Carlton, FCM

UCLG World Secretariat

With special thanks for their contribution to the Barcelona Provincial Council (International Relations Directorate) and in particular to Kontxi Odriozola and Ana Tapia.

Editorial board Credits

Anna Calvete Moreno, Expert on governance and global agendas, Barcelona, SpainAgustí Fernández de Losada, Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Global Cities Programme at Barcelona Center for International Affairs (CIDOB), SpainCarl Wright, Secretary-General Emeritus, Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF), United Kingdom

With special thanks to: Dorothée Allain-Dupré, Head of Unit, Decentralisation, public investment and subnational finance, CFE/ESG and Isabelle Chatry, Coordinator – Subnational Finance and Territorial Reforms, CFE/ESG, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); Nicolas Kada, Director, Research Group on Local Administration in Europe (GRALE), France. UCLG acknowledges the contributions made to the report by CEMR staff: Angelika Poth Moegele, Executive Director European Affairs; Nathalie Noupadja, Head of Research and Studies; Sarah Bentz, Policy Officer; Pedro Bizarro, Project Officer; Marine Gaudron, Policy Officer; Marlène Simeon, Director of PLATFORMA

With special inputs from networks involved in the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (www.global-taskforce.org)

Special acknowledgements for the financial and advisory support of:


Ministerial Roundtable at the ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development, New York, April 2018 (photo: UCLG-CGLU/Joel Sheakoski, bit.ly/33dIWf2).


The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a vision for People, Planet, Peace and Prosperity to be achieved through Partnership and solidarity. With only 10 years left to go, efforts need to be geared up in all regions of the globe in this new decade of action. Europe will have a crucial role to play in ensuring a smooth and efficient implementation across its territory, as it is still lagging behind in reaching many of the targets. The European Union’s response will have to become more ambitious, inclusive and multilateral, in order to make the 2030 Agenda a real transformative process for the European continent and the world.

For the Agenda to be a success, all levels of governance have to work together and step up their efforts. All stakeholders will have a strategic role to play, particularly if they work together with peers in partner countries. European local and regional governments and their associations are already embracing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They create new economic, social and ecological opportunities every day and are becoming fully committed actors for the implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda. They notably contribute to safeguarding the institutional coherence, continuity and coordination needed to implement the 2030 Agenda, provided they have the necessary powers, resources and capacities.

The 2030 Agenda also offers a series of opportunities that need to be seized. For local and regional governments, the Sustainable Development Goals represent a transformative framework that strives to improve the delivery of public services for citizens and enhance citizens’ engagement in public policy-making by breaking silos across policy areas and connecting with different stakeholders.

Local and regional governments are having to deal with the vast majority of today’s challenges, including climate change, changing demography,

waste management, energy efficiency, and local economic development, just to name a few. Achieving the SDGs therefore depends on full ownership by regions, cities and communities of all sizes. All 17 goals have a territorial dimension and also depend on the place and the territorial context where they are implemented.

The European context is a particular one, offering an active hub for innovation, collaboration, experimentation and co-creation. As a strong player on the international development scene, a lot is expected from Europe to help achieve this global mission. Whereas central governments sometimes find it difficult to cooperate, EU cities and regions are building bridges within Europe and across continents. The 2030 Agenda helps develop a common language between all cultures and territories, putting the wellbeing of citizens and the Planet back at the heart of the discussions.

To reach our ambitions for the next 10 years, we need to understand where we stand today. The Global Observatory on Local Democracy’s fifth report (GOLD V) on ‘The Localization of the Global Agendas’ is an excellent tool which provides assessments of the implementation of the global agendas in 142 countries across the world, including 41 in the European continent. The finds in this report have been complimented with experience and knowledge from the Council of European Municipalities and Regions’ secretariat, experts and members, and from PLATFORMA’s partners and teams.

The European chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the current national enabling environments for SDG implementation. It also analyses decentralisation trends, the current situation for local and regional governments in Europe and provides insights on existing examples of SDG implementation at all levels of governance. I wish readers of this report an informative and inspiring experience!

Frédéric VallierSecretary-General of the Council of

European Municipalities and Regions

Foreword


Abbreviations and Acronyms

A

AEBR – Association of European Border RegionsAER – Assembly of European Regions AICCRE – Associazione Italiana per il Consiglio dei Comuni e delle Regioni d’Europa (Italian Association for the Council of European Municipalities and Regions)AIMF – Association Internationale des Maires Francophones (International Association of French-speaking Mayors)

C

C40 – C40 Cities Climate LeadershipCEMR – Council of European Municipalities and RegionsCLGF – Commonwealth Local Government ForumCO2 – Carbon dioxideCOFOG – Classification of the Functions of GovernmentCOP – Conference of the PartiesCoR – European Committee of the Regions CPMR – Conference of Peripheral Maritime RegionsCSCC – Cross-Sectoral Coordinating Centre (Latvia)CSO – Civil society organization

D

DG – Directorate General (European Commission)DRR – Disaster Risk Reduction

E

EC – European CommissionEDLS – European Days of Local SolidarityEESC – European Economic and Social CommitteeEIB – European Investment BankEPSU – European Public Service UnionERDF – European Regional Development Fund ESF – European Social Fund EU – European UnionEUR – Euro

F

FEMP – Federación Española de Municipalidades y Provincias (Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces)

G

GCoM – Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and EnergyGDP – Gross domestic productGG — General government [expenditure]GHG – Greenhouse gasGIS – Geographic information systemGIZ – German Society for International CooperationGOLD – Global Observatory on Local Democracy and DecentralizationGTF – Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments

H

HDI – Human Development IndexHLPF – United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

I

IAEG-SDGs – United Nations Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals IndicatorsICLEI – Local Governments for SustainabilityICT – Information and Communications TechnologyILO – International Labour OrganizationIMF – International Monetary FundIPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISTAT – Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (National Statistics Institute, Italy)IT – Information Technology

K

KS – Kommunesektorens organisasjon(Norwegian Association of Local and RegionalAuthorities)

L

LAI – Local Autonomy IndexLALRG – Latvian Association of Local and Regional GovernmentsLGA – Local government associationLGBTQIA+ – Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual and other gender identitiesLGDK – Local Government DenmarkLNG – Liquified Natural GasLRG – Local and regional government


M

MDG – Millennium Development Goal

N

NALAS – Network of Associations of Local AuthoritiesNDCs – Nationally-Determined ContributionsNDP – National development plan NDS – National development strategy NGO – Non-governmental organizationNSDS – National sustainable development strategyNUA – New Urban AgendaNUP – National urban policy

O

ODA – Official Development Assistance OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

P

PIT – Personal Income TaxPLATFORMA – European Platform of Local and Regional Authorities for Development PPP – Public-Private PartnershipPPPP – Public-Private-People PartnershipPSI – Public Service International

R

RAI – Regional Autonomy IndexRFSC – Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities

S

SDG – Sustainable Development GoalSDSN – United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network SIDA – Swedish International Development AgencySME – Small and medium-sized enterpriseSNG – Sub-national governmentSRD – Strategy for Responsible Development (Poland)

T

TALD – Territorial approach to local development

U

UCCI – Unión de Ciudades Capitales Iberoamericanas (Union of Iberic-American Capital Cities)UCLG – United Cities and Local Governments UK – United KingdomUN – United NationsUNCDF – United Nations Capital Development FundUNDESA – United Nations Department for Economic and Social AffairsUNDP – United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDRR – United Nations Office for Disaster Risk ReductionUNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUNEP – United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUN-Habitat – United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeUNHCR – United Nations Refugee AgencyUNPAN – United Nations Public Administration NetworkUNSG – United Nations Secretary-GeneralUSD – U.S. dollar

V

VLR – Voluntary Local ReviewVNG – Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (Association of Netherlands Municipalities)VNGi – VNG International VNR – Voluntary National ReviewVVSG – Vereniging van Vlaamse Steden en Gemeenten (Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities)

W

WHO – World Health Organization

#

100RC – 100 Resilient Cities Project


In 2015 and 2016, world leaders came together to set a historic milestone in multilateral cooperation with the adoption of global agreements towards sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development all showcased a global will to respond to today’s global challenges through the adoption of a firm rights-based approach.

Local and regional governments (LRGs) have risen to the scale of the challenge, demonstrating their commitment to the realization of the global agendas by putting in place elaboration, adoption and implementation processes. From their perspective, the global agendas are interlinked and cannot be achieved in isolation: all sustainability actions to address the highly interrelated challenges affecting our territories and cities must be fully integrated and comprehensive. The 2030 Agenda has been widely embraced across territories and represents a significant step forward in terms of ambition, universality and complexity with respect to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The interconnectedness of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides, on the one hand, our best shot at tackling the multi-dimensional challenges facing our societies. On the other, it requires a significant step up in policy-making efforts and the adoption of a truly integrated approach that ensures that ‘no one and no place are left behind’ — in other words, the UN ‘whole-of-government’ and ‘whole-of-society’ approach to development (see Box 1), encompassing a truly multilevel and multi-stakeholder governance system that puts people at the centre of development (see Box 2).

We currently stand at the end of the first quadrennial cycle of implementation of the SDGs, which means that the worldwide state of implementation of each SDG has been evaluated at least once. Consequently, the international community is taking this time to take stock of the progress made, the trends that have emerged and the challenges encountered over these past four years, and these will be discussed at the

Background: Why SDG localization?

Box 1

Multilevel and collaborative governance frameworks that emphasize the need to approach policy-making processes in an integrated way, factoring in all government bodies and members of society. Adopting these approaches is critical for advancing sustainable development, since they constitute the basis for policy coherence (see Box 7) by requiring policy-making to happen in an integrated manner beyond institutional siloes, promoting synergies and improving public accountability. Putting governance frameworks in place requires the establishment of adequate coordination and participation mechanisms that ensure that sub-national governments (SNGs) and members of society take part effectively in policy design, implementation and monitoring processes at all levels of government.

Source: UNPAN; GTF, UCLG (2019), 'Towards the Localization of the SDGs'.

‘Whole-of-government’ and ‘whole-of-society’ approaches


SDG Summit in September 2019. According to the UN’s quadrennial Global Sustainable Report and the UN Secretary-General 2019 Special Report, positive trends have emerged at the aggregate global level, in particular regarding the implementation of SDGs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 14.1 Extreme poverty, child mortality rates and the share of the urban population living in slums continue to decrease, while progress has been made with respect to health, certain gender equality targets and access to electricity in poor territories. However, the shift towards a new sustainability paradigm is not taking place at the pace and scale required to trigger the necessary transformation to meet the Goals by 2030. The incidence of hunger has continued to spread in 2019, a trend observed since 2016. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 70% of which cities are responsible for, also continue to increase, while the loss of biodiversity continues to accelerate dramatically as the intensity of climate change worsens.2 Despite the progress made in poverty reduction, rising inequality continues to fuel the exclusion of discriminated and disadvantaged populations (such as the poor, women, youth, the elderly, people with disabilities, ethnic and sexual minorities, amongst others). Moreover, although the means of implementation are progressing, finance for sustainable development remains an ongoing issue. Institutions often depleted by territorial conflict are not robust enough to respond to the magnitude of the interrelated challenges they face.

As stressed by the UN Secretary-General (UNSG), the current social, economic and environmental trends that are shaping the world have a major impact on the realization of the SDGs and present a daunting challenge in terms of meeting the Goals in the mandated time. The UNSG identifies five such trends — urbanization, demographic change, climate change, protracted crises and frontier technologies.3 The interactions, synergies and trade-offs between these trends give rise to highly complex and interconnected policy-making environments at local, national and international levels. One of the main objectives of the GOLD V Report has been to examine how LRGs are contributing to the achievement of the global agendas in the face of such trends. These agendas — and the commitment of LRGs to achieving them — are changing our societies and promoting the evolution of good governance and citizen participation in highly diverse contexts all around the world. It is therefore critical to take this time to better understand where LRGs stand with respect to SDG implementation, and to revisit policy-making processes in order to take full advantage of the mutually reinforcing potential of global agendas and local processes as catalysers for change. The aim of the GOLD V Report is to contribute to such an endeavour, looking at

Box 2

A decision-making system based on coordination mechanisms that allow the allocation of competences and responsibilities of government both vertically and horizontally in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (see Box 6) and that respect local autonomy. This system recognizes that there is no optimal level of decentralization (see Box 5) and that implementation and competences are strongly context-specific: complete separation of responsibilities and outcomes in policy-making cannot be achieved and different levels of government are interdependent. Multilevel governance necessitates all levels sharing information and collaborating fully, so that every level can publicly and accountably lead horizontal relations with respective stakeholders to optimize policy outcomes.

Source: UCLG (2016), 'Fourth Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization. Co-creating the Urban Future'.

Multilevel governance

how to promote integrated policies and actions that meet today’s challenges from the local and regional perspective.

The GOLD V report highlights how, as part of their day-to-day responsibilities, LRGs are implementing policies and carrying out actions which although not always officially ‘SDG-labelled’, have a direct impact on populations’ access to infrastructure, services and life opportunities. As acknowledged by the UN General Assembly, the UNSG and the Habitat III consensus, the decarbonization of our economies and ensuring access to energy, water, food, transport and infrastructure will ultimately be achieved through project-level investments that take place mostly at the sub-national level and are led by LRGs.4 It is thus crucial to build up a critical mass of knowledge about how territories and cities are progressing towards sustainability, what initiatives are being put forward and what obstacles are being encountered if we are to achieve the SDGs and other global agendas.

One of the main transformations humanity is experiencing is the rapid urbanization of society, and in this respect LRGs find themselves increasingly at the centre of many crucial challenges. The percentage of the world’s population living in urban areas is expected to rise from 55% to nearly 70% by 2050 — an increase of 2.3 billion urban dwellers likely to be concentrated in low and lower middle-income territories where urbanization is happening at the fastest rate. Changes in population growth, age composition and migration patterns heavily impact urbanization pathways and those of the surrounding territories, cutting across a wide range of SDGs — for example poverty eradication, access to food and water, health, gender equality, economic growth and decent work, the reduction


of inequalities and promoting sustainable cities that are better articulated with their hinterlands — which significantly influences the prospects for SDG implementation. At the aggregate level, world population growth has slowed compared with ten years ago and stands at an annual growth rate of 1.1%.5 However, such figures mask highly heterogeneous demographic patterns between regions and urban and rural territories.

While more than half the growth forecast between 2019 and 2050 (estimated at two billion people) is expected to take place in Africa, Asia is expected to grow by 650 million people, Latin America by 180 million whilst Europe’s population is expected to decrease.6 Population growth will be concentrated in the least economically developed regions, which will make it even harder for those territories and cities to eradicate poverty and hunger and improve the provision of education, health and basic services. Moreover, the number of persons aged over 60 is expected to rise to 1.4 billion by 2030, although the pace at which the population is aging varies greatly between world regions. By 2050, all regions of the world are expected to have more than 25% of their populations aged over 60 — with the exception of Africa, which is expected to concentrate the world’s largest share of population aged between 15 and 19. Aging territories and cities will face increasing fiscal and political pressure to provide the elderly with pensions and social protection. At the same time, it will be critical for territories and cities with swelling youth populations to provide adequate healthcare, education and job opportunities to ensure the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

Climate and environmental challenges are profoundly reshaping our territories and have a direct impact on cities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) 2018 Special Report, the world has already warmed by 1°C above pre-industrial levels and, at the current rate of warming of 0.2°C per decade, global warming will reach 1.5°C by 2030. This report stresses the pivotal role played by cities in climate change mitigation and in reaching the agreed goal of limiting climate change to 2°C, and if possible 1.5°C. Allowing global warming to reach 2°C will critically endanger natural and human systems and will particularly affect the most vulnerable populations and territories. Since 1990, climate-related extreme disasters have more than doubled. This, together with drastically changing weather conditions, is causing unquantifiable suffering and loss of human life and the destruction of infrastructure, aggravating resource scarcity and forcing the displacement of populations. Existing tensions act as risk multipliers for violence, putting additional pressure on often fragile political systems and resources. Since 2010, state-based and non-state-based conflicts have risen by 60% and 125% respectively, while the number of globally displaced people has doubled over the past 20 years to reach 65 million.7 The deterioration of global peace constitutes a fundamental threat to the rule of law and good governance and, consequently, to the cornerstones of sustainable development.

In the face of such challenges, it is imperative that we scale up and accelerate action before it is too late. In order to do so, we need to think differently about development strategies and adopt an evidence-based approach to sustainable development that reflects the reality of today’s world. Urbanization, the development of frontier technologies and connectivity are some of the defining features of our contemporary societies, and although they pose challenges to governance, they are also the key to achieving the SDGs and preserving life for future generations.

The Local and Regional Governments’ Forum,

organized by the Global Taskforce, during the United

Nations’ SDG Summit in New York on September 24, 2019

(photo: UCLG-CGLU/Ege Okal, bit.ly/2naVvsb).


The purpose of the GOLD V Report is to propose how these ambitious Global Goals and objectives can be met through policies, actions and initiatives designed and put in place by the territories and communities that make up cities, towns and regions. The report suggests that this cannot be done unless urban and territorial planning, strategic design, institutional environments and political roadmaps are fully embedded in the territories, i.e. ‘territorialized’, taking full advantage of local potentialities, involving all local stakeholders and building on local needs and demands. In other words, these goals can only be achieved through a fully-fledged, co-owned and accountable process of localization of the global agendas (see Box 3).

Territories and cities can lead transformational processes that promote development models that are both respectful of the environment and put people first. Territorialized development strategies based on integrated planning have the power to transform cities and territories, foster inclusion, reduce resource usage and GHG emissions, and improve rural-urban linkages. When coupled with cutting-edge technologies, the economies of scale facilitated by cities and their ability to attract innovation become major catalysts for the achievement of the SDGs, allowing for the development of alternative patterns of production and consumption, decentralized renewable energy systems, individualized healthcare, natural disaster detection solutions, and stronger bonds between cities, towns and their hinterlands. The possibilities are endless. As shown throughout the GOLD V Report, such localized development strategies, developed from and suited to local realities, also have an impact on the global process of transforming development, which in turn reinforces sustainable

Purposes and goals of the report

local processes. The transformational potential of a territorial approach to local development (TALD) is enormous (see Box 4). Yet, in order to fully unleash it and ensure the implementation of the global development agendas, important challenges must be tackled. Significant efforts have been made since 2015 to implement the 2030 Agenda’s provisions and advance towards the achievement of the Goals. However, given the multi-dimensional challenges our societies are facing, the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs call for a move beyond narrow targeted policy-making towards a review of governance culture and

Box 3

The 2030 Agenda emphasizes the need for an inclusive and localized approach to the SDGs. Localization is described as ‘the process of defining, implementing and monitoring strategies at the local level for achieving global, national, and sub-national sustainable development goals and targets.’ More specifically, it takes into account sub-national contexts for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, from the setting of goals and targets to determining the means of implementation and using indicators to measure and monitor progress.

Localization

Source: GTF, UCLG (2019), 'Towards the Localization of the SDGs'; GTF, UNDP, UN-Habitat (2016), 'Roadmap for Localizing the SDGs: Implementation and Monitoring at Sub-national Level'; UN Development Group (2014), 'Localizing the Post2015 Agenda' (outcome of the global UN dialogue process realized from June 2014 to October 2014).


institutions. As discussed in the GOLD V Report, existing national strategies and institutional frameworks for SDG implementation, as well as the state of decentralization and the means available for local implementation of the global agendas, determine the transformational strength that local action can achieve (see Box 5). Questions thus arise: can the SDGs both inspire local action and influence such institutional environments?; and can local action arising from the cities and territories translate into global change?

Box 5

The existence of local authorities, as distinct from the state’s administrative authorities, to whom the legal framework allocates powers, resources and capacities to exercise a degree of self-government in order to meet the allocated responsibilities. Their decision-making legitimacy is underpinned by representative, elected local democratic structures that determine how power is exercised and make local authorities accountable to citizens in their jurisdiction.

The World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment proposes the following definition: ‘decentralization consists of the transfer of powers, responsibilities and resources from central government to sub-national governments, defined as separated legal entities elected by universal suffrage and having some degree of autonomy’.

Source: UN Habitat (2009), 'International Guidelines on Decentralisation and Access to Basic Services'; UCLG (2008), 'Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World,First Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization'; OECD-UCLG (2019), 'World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investments'.

Decentralization

Box 4

National development policy that recognizes local development as being endogenous, incremental, spatially integrated and multi- scalar, and which acknowledges the primary responsibility of local authorities for plan-ning, managing and financing such local development — in other words, development that enables autonomous and accountable local authorities to leverage the contribution of actors operating at multiple scales to produce public goods and services tailored to the local reality, which in turn brings incremental value to national development efforts.

Source: European Commission DEVCO (2016), 'Supporting decentralization, local governance and local development through a territorial approach'.

Territorial approach tolocal development (TALD)

This is important for shedding light on a number of related issues affecting (and changing) development policy globally. As stated previously, this study primarily aims to show the state of progress of SDG achievement in the territories and emphasize its critical importance for the realization of the global agendas. On the one hand, it is widely acknowledged that fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda requires the full engagement and commitment of all levels of governance including LRGs, civil society and local stakeholders such as the private sector, social partners, academia and grassroots organizations. On the other, territories and local communities are where implementation is taking place. The key question addressed by the GOLD V Report is the extent to which towns, cities, provinces and regions have been able — through their actions and initiatives — to become part of the solution to the fundamental and historic challenges they face. Analyzing the progress that local governments are making in the implementation of the Goals and their ‘localization’ — bringing them down to the local level, rethinking and re-designing them so that they fit with the characteristics and demands of citizens and territories — is an indication of how well the SDG framework itself is developing, and how much there is still left to do.

The GOLD V Report also aims to provide an updated picture on the current state of decentralization around the world. Achieving the SDGs and the other global agendas at the local level will not be possible unless territories, communities, and local authorities at different sub-national levels are adequately empowered, supported and funded. This implies strengthening and improving decentralization of the political system, promoting the devolution of competences and powers, ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity and making local governments responsible and accountable (see Box 6).

This regional report includes an analysis of national strategies for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and how LRGs are being engaged in this process, whether the institutional framework enables LRGs to be proactive in the implementation of these agendas, and the status of decentralization in the region. The report aims to answer questions on decentralization trends and the development of a truly multilevel understanding of policy-making: are LRGs more empowered and active than they used to be?; have the SDGs and the other global agendas driven any change in institutional relationships and vertical/horizontal cooperation?; are national planning and decision-making mechanisms and systems more open, sensitive to and aware of LRGs and their unique potential within territories and communities to effect change?


Box 7

An approach to sustainable development that calls for the integration of economic, social, environmental and governance dimensions in the policy-making process, acknowledging the critical interlinkages that exist between the SDGs. It aims to foster synergies, promote partnerships and balance transboundary and intergenerational policy impacts in order to identify and manage the relationships between SDGs in a way that limits and overcomes any potential negative impact resulting from their implementation.

Source: OECD (2019), 'Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2019'.

Policy coherence

Box 6

The principle according to which public responsibilities should be exercised by those elected authorities closest to citizens. The central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those responsibilities or tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level. Subsidiarity requires that local governments have adequate financial, managerial and technical and professional resources to enable them to assume their responsibilities to meet local needs, carrying out a significant share of public expenditure. Local governments should be granted the authority and power to raise local resources in line with the principle that authority be commensurate with responsibility as well as the availability of resources. The principle of subsidiarity constitutes the rationale underlying the process of decentralization.

Source: UN Habitat, 'International Guidelines on Decentralisation and Access to Basic Services' (2009); UCLG (2013), 'Third Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization. Basic Services for All in an Urbanizing World'.

Subsidiarity

Looking at decentralization and providing up-to-date mapping of how this trend has evolved are all the more essential in studying territorial and municipal authorities, given that rapid (and often uncontrolled) urbanization has become a worldwide phenomenon and a fundamental challenge facing local governance. Urbanization has had a crucial impact on several dimensions of local and regional governance: from urban and territorial planning, to the provision of basic public services; from socio-economic equality to marginalization and informality in housing and work; from the inevitable impact of climate change to the creation of new social and cross-cutting alliances to improve democracy, transparency and the quality of life in cities and territories. However, advances in these fields raise fundamental questions of sustainability and viability. The global agendas were agreed with the expectation that LRGs would act as accelerators and catalysts in the process, but how is this pressure altering the political balance? What room is there for LRGs to see their competences, powers, capacities, financial and human resources grow and improve, making them more aware, responsible and able to play an active role in the global quest for sustainability, prosperity and inclusiveness? What kind of financial autonomy is really granted to local and regional governments? There are plenty of financial and management instruments (climate and green bonds, Public-Private-People Partnerships — PPPPs — and remunicipalizations, amongst many others) that are changing the way actors are empowered at all levels to become drivers of change and leaders in policy-making. In what way are these new opportunities accessible to local governments? And how can those that are more visionary and long-sighted fund and sustain their policies and agendas in the long term?

The ability of LRGs to report on their policies and actions is also problematic since it is currently limited by a substantial lack of data, indicators and measurement which historically has not been devolved or disaggregated enough (with the partial exception of larger and wealthier regions and cities), hindering the capacity to grasp the huge potential at the local level for the localization and achievement of the Goals.

Ultimately, the responsibilities that LRGs are assuming in the localization of the SDGs and other agendas are raising fundamental questions of local democracy, accountability and transparency, representation and the place occupied by the local level in the current global system. Can LRGs be catalysts for change in politics and development policy? Do LRGs have the means and capacities to ensure that ‘no person or place is left behind’? Can effective intergovernmental cooperation across all levels of governance improve performance, boost policy coherence (see Box 7) and help make the SDGs

and the global agendas a reality, with positive effects on the quality of life of territories, cities, communities and society? Can the SDGs trigger a new model of development — urban, territorial, social, economic and human — which starts at the local level? This regional report provides inputs, answers and critiques of these points, as well as exploring other relevant issues. The conclusions and policy recommendations provide a common vision and understanding of the way forward for LRGs.

AlbaniaAndorraAustriaBelgiumBosnia and HerzegovinaBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyLatvia

LiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaMoldovaMonacoMontenegroNetherlandsNorthern MacedoniaNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSan MarinoSerbiaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited Kingdom


European region


The current situation in Europe is affected by the core strategies and policies adopted over the past few years by nearly all the countries in the region, as well as by the European Union (EU). Despite the economic recovery that has been taking place following the 2008-2009 global crisis, some territories in Europe are still struggling to catch up. Territorial and socio-economic inequalities in the region are growing, fuelling social unrest and political developments that have led to institutional changes within the countries in Europe and have compromised the influence of many EU institutions. The result of the British referendum that initiated the ‘Brexit’ process is one of these critical manifestations of unrest. Migratory policies are creating huge controversy among European countries, while the social mobilization of the ‘yellow vests’ in France was perceived as the protest of people living in peripheries who feel they ‘have been left behind’. At the same time, to fulfil its commitments on climate change and biodiversity, Europe needs to accelerate implementation. Moreover, at the sub-national level, local and regional governments (LRGs) are still finding it difficult to recover the level of investment they had before the crisis, which is hindering their capacity to respond to new challenges. These new challenges include mitigation of climate change, impacts of new technologies, increasing social demands — such as the housing crisis and increasing precariousness — or adaptation to aging population in most countries.

Europe, and particularly Western Europe, is the third most urbanized region of the world after North America and Latin America.1 Detailed information of urbanization trends in the 28 EU Member States provided by Eurostat highlights that in 2016, cities made up 59% of EU total population, accounting for 68% of EU gross national product (GDP) and providing 62% of EU employment.2 It also means that 41% are non-urban inhabitants and that specific policies are needed in order to address territorial imbalance.3

This report looks at the situation of LRGs in Europe with particular reference to the extent to which they are actively engaged in the implementation of sustainable policies and especially in the localization of the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as other key global targets, for example on climate change.

The report analyses both the national enabling environments for SDG implementation, decentralization trends and the current situation of LRGs in Europe, drawing on a range of statistical data from the last ten years. It also explores the emergence of what are termed ‘cooperative multilevel partnerships’ at both national and EU levels. It then reviews detailed LRG contributions to SDG localization, citing examples at local, regional, national and EU level. Finally, some broad conclusions and lessons are drawn and some recommendations proposed to boost SDG implementation and localization in Europe.

01. Introduction: the European region

Londonderry, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom (photo: PLACE Built Environment Centre, t.ly/800DP).

02. National and localinstitutional frameworksfor the implementationof the SDGs



2.1 National institutional frameworks

European countries have committed to implement the 2030 Agenda, and other key global pacts agreed since 2015-2016 (notably the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Addis Ababa Action Agenda for Financing for Development, and the New Urban Agenda). The 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs are therefore a potential ‘game changer’ for achieving policy coherence across governments by establishing national SDG implementation frameworks through SDG localization by LRGs.

Thirty-seven European countries submitted Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) to the UN High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) between 2016 and 2019, and they have expressed their political commitments to implement the 2030 Agenda. Many are in the process of aligning national strategic frameworks to the SDGs (see Table 1 and related endnote for the full list of countries that reported to the HLPF).4

Institutional mechanisms for SDG implementation National SDG coordinating mechanisms have been established or designated in European countries. These can either be new mechanisms created for SDG monitoring, or existing bodies or ministries, such as Commissions on Sustainable Development. Many countries place the coordination mechanism at the centre of government, at the Head of State or Prime Minister’s Office, for example. Most coordinating mechanisms are inter-ministerial, to encourage policy coherence across governments, given that the SDGs affect most governmental ministries’ policies. They also sometimes entail multi-stakeholder engagement, including LRGs and their representative associations (see Table 1).

Finland has one of the most developed institutional structures for SDG implementation, involving a National Commission on Sustainable Development, with LRG representation, chaired by the Prime Ministers’ Office, an Inter-ministerial Coordination Secretariat, a Development Policy Committee in Parliament, and an Interdisciplinary Sustainable Development Expert Panel. In

France, there is a High-Level Commissioner for Sustainable Development under the authority of the Prime Minister, located within the Ministry of Environment, in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since April 2018, a High-Level Steering Committee for the SDGs is in charge of developing a roadmap for the implementation of the SDGs. This committee includes representatives of LRG organizations.

In Germany, there is a State Secretaries’ Committee for Sustainable Development, a Parliamentary Advisory Council and a German Council for Sustainable Development (dating back to 2001). Switzerland has an Inter-Departmental Sustainable Development Committee and National 2030 Agenda Working Group. Similar coordinating mechanisms exist in most other European countries, as shown in Table 1. In a number of instances, such as in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, well-established procedures for consultation ensure effective dialogue and involvement. Research undertaken by UCLG however indicates that LRGs are only formally represented in (or consulted by) national SDG mechanisms in 20 countries to date (over 37 countries that reported to the HLPF between 2016 and 2019), and in many of these only on multi-stakeholder advisory committees, and not the main policy commissions or intergovernmental structures.5 In Spain, for example, in February 2019, the national government created a National Commission for the 2030 Agenda as a specific mechanism to ensure cooperation with LRGs (see also Section 3.1).6

In a number of instances, such as in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, well-established procedures for consultation ensure effective dialogue and involvement of LRG representatives and local stakeholders.

Table 1 National strategies for integrating SDGs, coordination mechanisms and LRG participation

AlbaniaInter-ministerial Committee on SDGs chaired by Deputy Prime Minister (multi-stakeholder); inter-institutional technical working groups support the implementation (liaise with local governments). National Strategy for Development and Integration 2015-2020 (NSDI II) closely aligned with SDGs.

AndorraCouncil of Ministers oversees the implementation. Coordination: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The 2030 Agenda integrated in Andorra’s policies and plans.

Austria (Federal)The liaison office of the Länder is involved with the Ministry of Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs in developing a Three-Year Programme 2019-21 that incorporates the SDGs. It will report in 2020.

Belgium (Federal)Inter-ministerial Conference for Sustainable Development led by Ministry of Sustainable Development; Inter-departmental Commission for Sustainable Development (coordination between federal administration) and Federal Council for Sustainable Development (regions represented). In Wallonia an independent SD advisory unit was set up in 2013 within the Walloon administration. In Flanders a specific working group on sustainable development is guiding the translation of the SDGs into goals relevant for Flemish policy and to further their implementation. The local government association, VVSG, is represented in the Flemish Council for Sustainable Development as well as involved on an ad hoc basis. In the Brussels-Capital Region, new legislation concerning development aid was adopted in the summer of 2017. The Long-Term Vision Statement for the Belgian 2030 outlook as well as the three regional strategies (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels-Capital) and German community are aligned with the SDG.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federal)Intergovernmental SDGs Rollout Working Group. SDG Rollout Roadmap (document) developed. A consultation process during 2018 –‘Imagine 2030'- will be finalized in 2019.

BulgariaCouncil for Development, chaired by the Prime Minister; Coordinating Committee for the National Programme for Development (not specifically for SDGs). SDGs aligned with National Programme for Development: Bulgaria 2020. It will report in 2020.

CroatiaNational Council for Sustainable Development chaired by the Prime Minister, includes local government organizations (LGAs). The 2030 National Development Strategy will be adopted in 2020.

CyprusMinistry of Foreign Affairs and inter-ministerial contact group. SDGs incorporated in the Action Plan for Growth and the National Reform Programme.

Czech RepublicGovernment Council on Sustainable Development chaired by the Prime Minister (advisory). Coordination: Office of the Government and the Ministry of Environment. LRGs represented in the Council. SDGs integrated in the Czech Republic 2030 Strategic Framework.

DenmarkInter-ministerial group led by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; formal agreement with municipalities/region to implement SDGs including with Local Government Denmark (LGDK) and Danish regions. In 2017, the government launched a National Action Plan containing 37 national targets on SDG implementation as well as a new strategy for international development cooperation and humanitarian action titled “The World 2030”.

EstoniaInter-ministerial working group on sustainable development led by Government Office Strategy Unit and Sustainable Development Commission (includes association of cities/municipalities). ‘Sustainable Estonia 21’ close to the SDGs.

FinlandTwo representatives each from the regions, cities and municipal administrations sit on the National Commission on Sustainable Development chaired by the Prime Minister. SDG alignment at national and local level. SDG implementation strategy includes ‘The Finland we want by 2050 – Society's commitment to sustainable development’

FranceOffice of Commissioner-General for Sustainable Development (within the Ministry of Environment) and the High-Level Steering Committee for Sustainable Development (CPHN, multi-stakeholder). The National Strategy for Ecological Transition towards Sustainable Development 2015-2020 (SNTEDD). In April 2018, a High-Level Steering Committee for the SDGs was created to develop a roadmap for the implementation of the SDGs.

Germany (Federal)State Secretaries Committee for Sustainable Development led by Federal Chancellery; Council for Sustainable Development; extensive engagement with states and local government on preparation of its renewed Sustainable Development Strategy; LRGs participate in Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Sustainable Urban Development. SDG alignment under NSDS 2017.

GreeceGeneral Secretariat of the Government, in particular its Office of Coordination, Institutional, International and European Affairs (OCIIEA); inter-ministerial coordination network; Economic and Social Committee (with LRG participation). National Growth Strategy and National Priorities for SDGs (2018). National Implementation Plan will follow in 2019.

HungaryNational Council for Sustainable Development, chaired by the Speaker of the Parliament (multi-stakeholder), supported by a Secretariat and four working committees; Inter-ministerial Coordinative Committee for International Development Cooperation. SDGs aligned within the National Framework Strategy on Sustainable Development (NFSSD) 2012-2024 (adopted in 2013).


IcelandInter-ministerial working group involving all ministries, including the Association of Local Authorities and Statistics Iceland. The representative of the Prime Minister’s Office is chairman of the group and the Foreign Ministry’s representative vice-chairman. SDGs linked to the government's five-year fiscal strategy.

IrelandMinister of Communications, Climate Action and Environment and Senior Official Group chaired by the Prime Minister; National Sustainable Development Unit and SDG Inter-departmental Working Group; National SDG Stakeholders Forum including local government. SDG National Implementation Plan 2018-2020 and Project Ireland 2040 composed two documents: National Planning Framework to 2040 and National Development Plan 2018-2027.

ItalyPrime Minister coordinates, supported by the Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Finance. National Forum for Sustainable Development (multi-stakeholder). Regional government involved. SDGs aligned with NSDS 2017-2030.

LatviaCross-Sectoral Coordinating Centre (CSCC) led by the Prime Minister (LRGs consulted), and National Development Council. In preparation for the 2018 VNR, the CSCC had a working group in which the national LGA was represented. SDGs aligned with the Sustainable Development Strategy of Latvia until 2030 (Latvia 2030) and the National Development Plan 2020 (NDP2020).

LiechtensteinInterdisciplinary working group led by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Justice and Culture. SDGs integrated in the 2017–2021 Government Programme.

LithuaniaNational Commission for Sustainable Development chaired by the Prime Minister (advisory, multi-stakeholder). Coordination is overseen by the Ministry of Environment and inter-institutional working group on sustainable development. SDGs aligned with National Strategy for Sustainable Development (2003-2020, revised), in Lithuania’s Progress Strategy ‘Lithuania 2030’, and the government’s four-year action programme.

LuxembourgInter-departmental Commission for Sustainable Development. Coordination: Minister of Environment; High-Level Council. SDGs aligned to National Sustainable Develop-ment Plan that was revised in 2018.

MaltaMinistry for the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate Change and Foreign Office and Trade Promotion act as focal point network. SDGs integrated in the NSDS 2050.

MoldovaCouncil for Sustainable Development. Coordination: State Chancellery, with the support of National Bureau of Statistics. SDGs partially aligned with the National Development Strategy Moldova 2020 (2012). A National Development Strategy Moldova 2030 is in preparation. The country will present its first VNR in 2020.

MonacoCoordination: inter-ministerial working group chaired by the Minister of State, managed by the Department of External Relations and Cooperation. The government prioritized the SDG related to environmental protection. No local governments.

MontenegroNational Council for Sustainable Development and Climate Change (2013, multi-stakeholder), Sustainable Development Office in the Office of the Prime Minister (oversight). Coordination: Ministry of Finance. SDGs aligned with the NSDS until 2030.

NetherlandsMinistry of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation; national coordinator; inter-ministerial focal group with focal points in ministries and the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) (LGA); regular dialogue with LRGs. SDGs mainstreamed in the Netherlands Action Plan on Inclusive Development. Aruba, Curaçao, St Maarten integrate the SDGs in their National Development Plan or in the Roadmap of the SDGs (Aruba).

NorwayMinistry of Finance (budget alignment); Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Climate and Environment coordinate external and internal actions. Regular dialogue with LRGs. SDG follow-up linked to the budget process.

PolandMinistry of Entrepreneurship and Technology and Strategy for Responsible Development (SRD) Coherence Task Force within the Coordination Committee for Development Policy (LRG representation). Political guidance by the Council of Ministers. SDGs integrated in the SRD.

PortugalMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Planning and Infrastructures lead inter-ministerial commissions (domestic and overseas SDG implementation). SDGs integrated in the National Reform Programme.

RomaniaDepartment for Sustainable Development under the Office of the Prime Minister, Inter-ministerial Committee for the Coordination of the Integration of Environmental Protection headed by the Ministry of Environment. Revision of NSDS of Romania Horizon 2013-2020-2030.

SerbiaInter-Ministerial Working Group for Implementation of the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (IMWG) chaired and coordinated by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for demography and population policy. LGA participates in the Joint National Steering Committee co-chaired by the UN Resident Coordinator. SDGs aligned with National Plan for Adoption of the EU Acquis from 2018 to 2021 (NPAA) and with the Development Partnership Framework (DPF) for the period 2016 – 2020.

SlovakiaMulti-stakeholder Government Council for the 2030 Agenda led by Deputy Prime Minister; Working Group for the 2030 Agenda. Including the Association of Towns and Municipalities of Slovakia (ZMOS). Strategy: National Priorities of the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda.


GOLD V REGIONAL REPORT

SDG alignment to national policies and local and regional government involvement The majority of European countries have national strategies for sustainable development, supported by national commissions/committees, which pre-date the 2030 Agenda. These are still in force and in most countries are being mapped against the SDGs to align them with SDG targets; examples include Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania and Switzerland. In other countries, national development policies (NDPs) (Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania), or government work plans (Croatia, Iceland, Portugal) are being aligned with the SDGs.

According to an EU statement in 2019, ‘about half of the Member States are about to take measures to operationalize their strategies or to link them to the budget: Croatia, Estonia, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden’.7 A few countries have not yet defined a specific national framework or cross-sectoral strategy (Austria, Iceland, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and UK). Bosnia and Herzegovina and Spain are currently doing so.8

By way of example, Estonia undertook a ‘gap analysis’ of its policies and the SDGs and identified a range of differentials which need to be addressed. The Swiss Sustainable Development Strategy 2016-19 is linked to SDG implementation; Switzerland also submitted separate VNRs in 2016 and 2018. Finland’s strategy for sustainable development likewise references the SDGs, following its updating in 2017. Moreover, Denmark has formulated an action plan for the achievement of the SDGs nationally.9

At regional level, the European institutions have reaffirmed their commitment to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda worldwide.10

However, the EU does not yet have sustainable development strategy. The Council of the European Union asked the European Commission (EC) to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy during 2019.11

Most national frameworks for the implementation of the SDGs adopted by European countries reference the need to support LRGs, and LGAs in 13 countries have been involved in the design of the national strategies.12

LRGs and their national LGAs were consulted by national government and involved in SDG implementation in a number of European countries. For example, in Switzerland the federal level felt it critical to integrate sustainable development principles into all levels of government, including the cantons and communes, to create and increase ownership: many communes have in fact defined their own strategies for sustainable development. In such

SloveniaGovernment Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy, in close cooperation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Permanent Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Development Policies. The 2030 Agenda is aligned with the Vision of Slovenia, released in 2017. In December 2017, Slovenia’s Government adopted also the National Development Strategy 2030.

Spain High-Level Commission (inter-ministerial) with LRG observers; Office of the High Commissioner for the 2030 Agenda, under the Office of the President of Government. Action plan in process of elaboration.

SwedenMinister of Public Administration and the Minister for International Development Cooperation and Climate; inter-ministerial working group; thematic commissions; regular dialogue with LRGs. Adopted an Action Plan for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

Switzerland (Federal)Oversight: Federal Council of Switzerland. Coordination: inter-departmental National 2030 Agenda Working Group, co-led by the Federal Office for Spatial Development and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); strong engagement of cantons and communes. SDGs aligned to NSDS 2016-2019 (revised every four years).

United KingdomCabinet Office and Department for International Development. Strategies: UK Government’s Programme of Work; Welsh Government SDG alignment through 2015 Wellbeing of Future Generations Act; Scotland’s National Performance Framework.

Sources: VNRs 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. UNDESA (2017 and 2018). 'Compendium of National Institutional Arrangements for Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development'.

Europe

Table 1 National strategies for integrating SDGs, coordination mechanisms and LRG participation

22


According to the GTF's 2019 report, 23 countries in Europe (63% of 37 European countries that reported) involved prior consultation with local governments for the drafting of the VNR.

cases, there is clear recognition that the process of SDG alignment should extend equally to the plans and policies of LRGs as to national government. However, a considerable number of countries show no reported evidence of LRGs being directly engaged in national SDG mapping or alignment processes.

The GTF’s 2017,13 201814 and 201915 reports to the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), ‘Towards the Localization of the SDGs’ examine the extent to which local governments have been consulted in the preparation of VNRs and how far their work is reflected in final submissions. They identify key policy issues, drawing on a wide range of country and city-specific examples. According to the 2019 report, 23 countries in Europe (63% of 37 European countries that reported) involved prior consultation with local governments for the drafting of the VNR (compared with 44% at the global level) (see Section 3.1).

A similar analysis by CEMR (the Council of European Municipalities and Regions) and PLATFORMA (European Platform of Local and Regional Authorities for Development)16 shows that LGAs’ participation in the drafting of the European VNRs is increasing (from 50% in the 2016-2018 period to 60% in 2019), mostly through various forms of multi-stakeholder consultations. However, LGAs are still found to be ‘generally passive’ and contribute only indirectly to the VNR content.17 This is also the case with LGAs’ participation in the national coordination mechanisms mentioned above (in 20 out of 39 countries).

The degree to which local governments are consulted and involved in a country’s SDG system and implementation is partly a function of their political relationship with central government and the extent of decentralization. However, it is also driven often by how much a LGA is proactive in its engagement in the VNR process and the extent to which local political leadership is committed to SDG implementation.

In the case of Spain, the partnership with LRGs is underlined in its 2018 VNR, with a section detailing the localization of SDGs in each region and at local government level, with particular focus on the role of the Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP). The Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments (LALRG) was proactively engaged in the preparation of the country’s 2018 VNR. LALRG was represented (its Secretary-General) on a working group of the national SDG Cross-Sectoral Coordinating Centre (CSCC). This meant it was able to submit draft sections of the regional report with reference to the role of local government. Latvia’s VNR has a separate section on local government, which notes that all local governments have sustainable development strategies and which

acknowledges the work of LALRG.18 Likewise, the 2017 VNR of the Netherlands documents the work of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) in SDG localization.19 Serbia’s 2019 VNR emphasizes the role of the country’s LGA – the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (SCTM) – in the creation of the local community-led hub. The 2019 VNR of Iceland cites SDG implementation as ‘a joint project of the state and municipalities, as they have an important role for successful implementation of the SDGs.’ Both Iceland’s and Serbia’s VNRs dedicate specific sections or spaces to explaining the role of LRGs, likewise the United Kingdom and Bosnia and Herzegovina VNRs give particular emphasis to the localization process.20 Other VNRs that make explicit reference to LRGs are the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland.

While in some countries, LRGs and their LGAs are taking the lead to support the implementation of the SDGs at sub-national level, in others, they lack the financial resources and support to ensure effective localization. This is exacerbated by the reforms and cuts in local budgets since the 2008-2009 global crisis that affected many LRGs (see Sections 2.2 and 3.1).

Thus, the importance of building local government capacity is highlighted in various VNR reports. For example, Montenegro has underlined that public sector capacities, especially of local governments, needs to be significantly increased. Moreover, Serbia has in its 2019 VNR highlighted the need for international financing support. Greater support and joint efforts between national and sub-national governments (SNGs) to undertake SDG-related work, such as SDG awareness-raising among members or promotion of SDG alignment, are urgently required.21


Decentralization trends: policies and reformsIn the past decade, LRGs in several countries in Europe have increasingly put pressure on national government to make important changes in local governance. The reforms, decentralization trends and associated policies that have followed have been analysed in a number of academic studies, as well as by international organizations such as the EU and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).22

In federal or quasi-federal European states (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Switzerland), reforms have mainly aimed to improve distribution of responsibilities between different levels of government, improve intergovernmental fiscal relations, and strengthen internal stability pacts, altering equalization mechanisms and enhancing policy coordination. In unitary states, public sector reforms have sought to strengthen decentralization and improve multilevel governance systems (the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, United Kingdom), improve economies of scale and efficiency (France), and improve public management (Ireland). Furthermore, after the global crisis, many reforms were linked to austerity measures, spending control and rationalization.23

In general, in federal and quasi-federal countries (Spain), LRGs enjoy wider functions and responsibilities, particularly at regional or state levels, and have higher levels of sub-national expenditures and revenues as a percentage of gross national product (GDP) than unitary countries, but wide variations exist throughout Europe, according to the extent of decentralization.

In federal countries, LRG expenditures account for 21.5% of total public spending compared with 9.7% in unitary countries. However, in some unitary countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden, LRGs represent a larger part of public spending (27.4%) (see Figure 3).24

The Local Autonomy Index (LAI) for Europe, is a measurement developed by academia to try to analyse the extent of sub-national functions and responsibilities. The LAI combines measures on (1) legal autonomy, (2) policy scope (range of functions/tasks in service delivery), (3) political discretion (decision-making power in fulfilling tasks), (4) financial autonomy, (5) organizational/administrative autonomy, (6) non-interference (related to vertical relations with higher levels of government ), and (7) access to influencing higher-level decisions (see Figure 1).25

2.2 Current situation of local and regional governments in Europe

Figure 1

Local Autonomy Index (LAI) 2014country rankings

Sources: Extracted from OECD (2019), 'Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers', OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en.

Switzerland

Finland

Iceland

Sweden

Denmark

Poland

Germany

Norway

Italy

Serbia

France

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Czech Republic

Austria

Estonia

Portugal

Belgium

Slovakia

Netherlands

Northern Macedonia

Romania

Croatia

Luxembourg

Spain

Latvia

Hungary

Albania

Slovenia

Greece

United Kingdom

Cyprus

Malta

Georgia

Moldova

Ireland

79.6

79.4

78.1

75.1

74.7

74.1

73.9

73.9

68.2

67.0

66.8

66.2

65.1

64.9

64.8

63.7

61.6

61.3

60.9

59.6

59.3

58.1

56.7

55.9

55.0

54.2

50.8

50.6

48.9

47.9

45.7

42.3

39.2

38.4

35.9

34.9

https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en


The Regional Authority Index (RAI) is another measure designed to track the evolution of administrative regions and intermediary governments in more than 81 countries, including 38 European countries.26 According to the OECD, ‘the Regional Authority Index and the Local Autonomy Index also show an increase in the degree of authority of municipalities and regions over the past decades’, although trends in recent years have been more varied.27

The different measures and studies show four Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden — as being in the top ten countries in Europe, along with Switzerland, Poland and Germany, and followed by Italy, France, Norway and Austria; the LAI adds Serbia to this list.28 According to the LAI, as summarized by the OECD,29 in France there is high local autonomy with the exception of features of the local political system and administrative organization. In Switzerland, municipalities are autonomous in their financial and organizational affairs and enjoy legal protection, but they are to a lesser extent able to decide on their own policies, due to their smaller size and the more discretionary powers of cantons. The much larger German municipalities — despite Germany’s federalist structure — are more autonomous with respect to policy scope and political discretion. In Spain, decentralization is advanced at the regional level, but more restricted at municipal level. In the United Kingdom, financial autonomy is limited while organizational autonomy is not. Ireland, finally, shows very low levels of autonomy in virtually all dimensions.

Apart from Poland, which has made progress towards decentralization, most EU Member States in Central and Eastern Europe are still in a process of further decentralization. Countries tend to have high legal and to some extent organizational/administrative autonomy, but less autonomy in other areas (e.g. Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovenia).30 Hungary is the one major exception with recentralization of powers back to central government, and with the share of sub-national expenditure decreasing by 5% in the past 20 years. In Hungary, education, healthcare and some social services have also been recentralized, especially after 2012 (and the institution of Cardinal Law). Transfers are now mostly earmarked, having changed from an income-based system to a task-based system.31

Although local self-government is enshrined in most of their constitutions, decentralization is in its very early stages in non-EU Member States in the Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia), with the exception of Croatia, where resources are more decentralized (particularly at county level). In some countries such as Moldova and Serbia, reform processes have recently stalled and in others, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and

Montenegro, there are serious ongoing problems because of political and ethnic divisions.32

The reforms implemented during the past decade have had an impact on the responsibilities and capacities of LRGs, albeit to different degrees, in the whole region, but most pronounced in the countries of the South of Europe — most affected by the global 2008-2009 crisis. Because of budgetary restrictions in Greece and Portugal, the oversight of local government finances was reinforced, salaries and staff recruitment frozen, and the sub-national territorial organization revised. In Greece the 2010 Kallikratis Reform created 13 fully self-governing regions with new responsibilities in the area of regional planning and development, including structural funds (transferred from the prefectures) and merged municipalities. In Spain, several laws have increased the control on budgets and limited the indebtedness of local governments, reducing their competences (particularly for the smaller municipalities) and restricting remunerations of all civil servants including at sub-national level. In Italy, the measures adopted in 2012 and 2013 imposed budgetary and spending restrictions as well as territorial reorganization, impacting local autonomy.

Laerdal, Norway (photo: © Andrea Ciambra).


As well as the South of Europe, France’s multifaceted local government reform in 2010 included several measures, such as the reform of the local taxation system (reduction of local taxing power) and equalization mechanisms; a streamlining of inter-municipal cooperation; and the creation of a new status of metropole. Important parts of the 2010 legislation were later revoked and the 2013-2015 Act III of Decentralization resulted in new territorial and decentralization reforms, including the law on metropoles (2014), regional mergers (2014) and the NOTRe law (2015). The latter modifies the allocation of responsibilities across different SNG levels, strengthening the responsibilities of regions (on economic development, territorial planning, environment protection, vocational training).

In Germany, meanwhile, the number of municipalities decreased and financial controls were put in place in several Länder, but responsibilities increased, inter-municipal cooperation (Gemeindeverband and Zweckverbände) was facilitated, and privatization and externalization of public services were developed to reduce expenditures. Today however, municipalities are trying to regain control of public services (re-municipalization of water and other basic services). The Netherlands moreover imposed some budget and transfers restrictions on the sub-national level, with new devolution of responsibilities (e.g. youth health, long-term care, etc.) accompanied by a historical merger process, and compelled local governments to rationalize and develop new modalities for services delivery (e.g. implementation of Service Charters).

In Finland, the regionalization process launched in 2013 was interrupted in 2019. National governments also set minimum standards for the provision of local services. In Norway, this was done under the KOSTRA performance measurement system.

Reference should also be made to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe,33 which is responsible for monitoring the application of the European Charter of Local Self-Government34 adopted in 1985 and ratified by all 47 Member States of the Council. The Charter has at its core the principle of subsidiarity and its five-yearly monitoring reports provide a useful insight into decentralization throughout

Europe. The reforms experienced during the last reporting period have had a varied impact on local autonomy: ‘In a majority of countries, the perception of some loss of autonomy was due more to the reduction of resources than to institutional restrictions.’ However, this is not a small issue (see Financing local development, below).35

National territorial organization: structure of sub-national governmentsAs already mentioned, the reforms also had an impact on the territorial organization in Europe. In the early 1990s, the 28 EU Member States alone had approximately 97,500 municipalities, which fell to around 87,182 in 2017-2018. A huge variation in average population per municipality remains however, ranging from 168,000 in the United Kingdom and 151,000 in Ireland (since the 2014 local government reform) to only 1,700 in the Czech Republic, 1,850 in the Slovak Republic and 1,890 in France in 2017-2018.36 There are another 5,056 municipalities in non-EU Member States, thus the total number of local governments across the continent is still close to 100,000.37 In addition, there are intermediate level local governments (e.g. departments in France, provinces in Belgium and Spain), metropolitan bodies areas and regions, which add significantly to the total numbers of LRGs in Europe.

Recent territorial reforms have resulted in amalgamations of both municipalities and regions and in some cases their outright abolition. Ireland saw particularly dramatic changes in 2014, resulting in 114 councils being reorganized into 31 local governments and the abolition of the previous eight regional authorities. In Estonia in 2017, the number of municipalities was reduced from 213 to 79 (14 urban and 65 rural). However, in most instances, changes have been more gradual, including in many of the non-EU Balkan States. For example, Moldova (population 3.46 million) still has 1,679 local authorities (villages, communes, cities and municipalities) and 35 regions (districts). Overall, there has been relatively little change in the distinction between federal, unitary and quasi-federal states in Europe in the past ten years (see Table 2).

The complexity of structures has increased in the past ten years, with sometimes overlapping functions between the different levels of government, driven by ambitious reform programmes. Such territorial organization reforms are often triggered by political, demographic and socio-economic changes. These include growth in services, transport or new ICT requirements, considerations around the need for local management, and financial considerations around sharing services to effect economies of scale due to shrinking revenues.

Recent territorial reforms have resulted in amalgamations of both municipalities and regions and in some cases their outright abolition.


Table 2 Types and numbers of sub-national government (2017-2018)

Federal or quasi-federal States

Municipal Intermediate Regional/state Total

Austria 2,098 9 2,107

Belgium 589 10 6 605

Bosnia and Herzegovina 145 10 155

Germany 11,054 401 16 11,471

Spain 8,124 50 17 8,191

Switzerland 2,222 26 2,248

Unitary states

Albania 61 12 73

Bulgaria 264 264

Croatia 555 21 576

Cyprus 380 380

Czech Rep. 6,258 14 6,272

Denmark 98 5 103

Estonia 79 79

Finland 311 1 312

France 35,357 101 18 35,476

Greece 325 13 338

Hungary 3,178 19 3,197

Iceland 74 74

Ireland 31 31

Italy 7,960 20 7,980

Latvia 119 119

Lithuania 60 60

Luxembourg 102 102

Malta 68 68

Moldova 1,697 35 1,732

Montenegro 68 68

Netherlands 390 12 392

N. Macedonia 23 23

Norway 422 18 422

Poland 2,478 380 16 2,874

Portugal 308 2 310

Romania 3,181 41 3,222

Serbia 174 2 176

Slovakia 2,930 8 2,938

Slovenia 212 212

Sweden 290 21 311

United Kingdom 391 27 3 421

Sources: OECD, ‘Making Decentralisation Work’. Annex B, p.161; CCRE, CEMR, ‘About Members’; OECD-UCLG, SNG-WOFI.


Functions and responsibilities: core competences as defined by lawThe impact of territorial reforms can be complex, involving changes of powers at different sub-national levels, as has been seen in the regions, e.g. in Norway. In many cases, reforms are directly linked to significant decentralization, intended to be politically attractive and to result in stronger, more empowered local government. In Iceland in 2011, municipalities gained new responsibilities for service provision and support for disabled people; in Ireland in 2014, local authorities were given an expanded role in economic development (but water was recentralized), and in the Netherlands, reforms that took effect in 2015 involved new municipal responsibilities for social care. Under the 2014-17 reforms in Norway, additional competences in secondary education and transport were transferred to municipalities from the counties and central government.38 In Belgium, the 6th State Reform (2014) transferred additional responsibilities to regions (labour market policies, mobility and justice), and municipalities (family allowance, long-term care, health). In Italy, reforms introduced in 2014 resulted in ten metropolitan cities taking over competences of the former provinces with additional powers for local police, roads, transport, and spatial and

urban planning, and the metropolitan city mayor directly elected. In Czech Republic, in 2015, some municipal responsibilities were reallocated from small municipalities to larger municipalities (to overcome municipal fragmentation), and to the central government in the social reform framework.

Statistics regarding sub-national expenditure by sector or function are compiled by the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), which has ten main categories.39 These give some indication of core roles and responsibilities of European LRGs in relation to central government. They relate to education, economic affairs and transport; social protection; health; housing and community amenities; recreation, culture and religion; general public services; security and public order; defence and environmental protection. Each category also has sub-functions. Figure 2 gives a breakdown of the different areas as a percentage of GDP and of total general government expenditure (GG).

As shown in Figure 2, SNG spending responsibilities (as a percentage of GDP) are more significant in education, social protection, health, general public services and economic affairs (including transport). However, LRGs represent a substantial part of GG expenditures in housing and

Figure 2

Sub-national government expenditures of European countries (34) by sector/function as % of GDP and of general government expenditure (GG) (COFOG, 2016)

Source: Authors’ calculation based on unweighted averages in 34 countries. OECD/UCLG (2019), World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investments, http://www.sng-wofi.org/data/.

% o

f G

G e

xpen

dit

ure

Publicservices

Publicorder

Environment Health EducationDefence Economic Housing Recreation Socialprotection

1.7

18.815.7

55.6

64.7

23.0

51.646.9

11.4

27.1

0.4

1.3

0.3

0

0.4 0.4

1.7

0.6

2.7

2.6

% o

f G

DP

% of GDP % of GG

http://www.sng-wofi.org/data/


amenities, environmental protection, recreation, culture and religion, and education. The spending contributions to GG of the state/regional level are often greatest in areas such as housing, education, recreation/culture, environment, public order, economic development and health while local governments’ contribution is higher for housing, environment, recreation/culture and education. There is significant variation by country: in countries where the extent of decentralization is low, local government functions tend to be more restricted to sectors such as general public services, recreation and culture, and, to a lesser extent, economic affairs, transport and housing, and community amenities.

In recent years, municipalities in Denmark have received new competences over social welfare and education while the regions have obtained more responsibilities for he

2019 The Localization of the Global Agendas · GOLD V REGIONAL REPORT —— EUROPE 7 The 2030...

Documents

Transcript of 2019 The Localization of the Global Agendas · GOLD V REGIONAL REPORT —— EUROPE 7 The 2030...